The Church of England’s House of Bishops met earlier this week, and the following press release has been issued.
House of Bishops Autumn Meeting
23/10/2024
The House of Bishops met in person for its Autumn meeting
The House of Bishops met in Hertfordshire from 22nd-23rd October.
The House discussed the recently proposed Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the importance of investment in palliative care, the potential risks to vulnerable people and possible unintended consequences for those who might feel a burden to others at the end of their lives. The Bishops reflected on the need for compassion for all those involved in the debate and work on the subject.
In a session on finance the House received updates on the Triennium Funding Working Group, Diocesan Finances Review and the work of the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board. The Bishops continued to consider material from the Seal of the Confessional Working Group, noting that further legislative steps by Government on mandatory reporting have yet to be announced.
The House agreed to commission further work on safeguarding risk assessments with proposals to come back to the House within 12 months.
The House continued their discussions on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process. In accordance with the General Synod motion GS 2358 passed in July, the Bishops considered what guidance could be given to the working groups developing the detail of proposals on specific areas of work, including the proposed Bishops Statement and Code of Practice. Additional feedback from the discussions will be provided to the working groups.
The House received an update on progress on the preparation of new policy and guidance on Clergy Files, supporting good safeguarding practice, safer recruitment and record keeping. Following the adoption by the House in May of the pilot template for the Episcopal Reference and Clergy Current Status Letter (CCSL) the House agreed to approve the final version presented with minor changes.
The Bishops had an initial discussion of the report ‘Let Justice Roll Down Like Waters’, exploring the well-being of working class clergy, and committed to further work.
The meeting closed in prayer.
More information
Once again the Meeting Closed in Prayer. I wonder if they have ever considered the meeting opening in prayer, and if so, whether it would make a difference.
There is a culture of DNRs which means some people are already allowed to pass when their life could be saved, and often without their knowledge or wishes. It therefore seems a bit precious to object to assisting those people who do want to avoid agonising last days, without addressing the issue of unwanted DNRs. I can see moral arguments in favour of either allowing assisted dying or banning DNRs, but I personally struggle to support the status quo which to me is inconsistent and based on the wishes of bureaucracy not of individuals and their families. I worry that… Read more »
Pleased to see that the bishops are paying attention to the impending Assisted Suicide debate in the Commons and rightly top of their agenda. Sorry Kate but I strongly disagree and the substance of the complex arguments against changing the law can be seen aired during General Synod debate from Sunday 10th July 2022 available on You Tube. A DNR where a person does not want a traumatic intervention with a very low rate of “success” is one thing whereas deliberately intervening to end a persons life is a very different matter
I confess I don’t see the difference. Writing DNR on a chart is a positive action likely in many cases to result in death. The issue of assisted dying is complex and I have avoided sharing my views, but I do think seeing it as significantly different to issuing a DNR is flawed reasoning.
A DNR simply recognises that resuscitation would be futile or result in a poor quality of life after. It’s not a choice made when a person is healthy – there are different routes to making your wishes legally known under those circumstances.
“…on the basis of relatively brief discussions…” For my wife and her ordained colleagues, the ethical, theological, spiritual and pastoral implications have never left their minds since they first encountered them in university, through ministerial formation and decades of pastoral care to their congregations. Preparing the dying for their death is specifically mentioned at their ordination! May I suggest that it is clergy who have given long thoughtful consideration, over the whole of their working lives, rather than the knee jerk reactions of politicians prompted by celebrities making press headlines. Perhaps an overstatement, but I do not detect the same… Read more »
I think this is a very fair statement and, as the bishops are themselves clergy, I stand corrected.
I can’t see a moral argument for banning DNRs. I can see an argument (I would say a moral imperative) for making sure patients or their representatives being informed and having an opportunity to challenge before one is recorded. Used well, a DNR allows someone to die quietly and peacefully rather than having their body bruised and broken by futile attempts to revive them. The horror of DNRs during the pandemic was them being secretly applied to disabled people and others who were not expected to die imminently.
I’m not sure how many of you have viewed the recent interview between Justin Welby and Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell (perhaps a separate thread for this would be helpful). In many ways it is a heart-rending account of personal struggle with mental health issues and the struggle of fulfilling the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury and I commend him for his openness and honesty. But embedded within all this are two clarifications which give perhaps the clearest insight into the thinking of many of the House of Bishops. 1. First sexual intimacy is now to be seen to be… Read more »
Welby’s statements do not change the doctrine of the Church of England, only Synod can do that and only by a two thirds majority in each of the three houses of Synod. Welby has just confirmed that he doesn’t uphold the doctrine of the Church of England.
It is indeed a doctrinal paradigm shift. But Welby, and most bishops, will continue to deny that this amounts to a change of doctrine (or, not in any ‘essential’ matter). Unless that is officially admitted, the obfuscation, and resulting acrimony, will continue. But if it is admitted, the bishops will have to agree to using B2 to change the doctrine. But they won’t get a 2/3 majority for that (unless conservatives leave in sufficient numbers) so they are bound to sustain the obfuscation. This is the corner the bishops have boxed themselves in.